The ACLU Defends NAMBLA

[Gilding the Lily]

I would agree with you if it only went as far as enforcing the law to the letter of the law. Again, the enforcement needs to be conduced equally to all people.

My biggest problem is with the example you cite. While I would be very uncomfortable with a child attending class with a potential pedophile, I am not sure I like the idea of community outrage being the determining factor in someone’s termination. If the teacher was in violation of the law or had a criminal background, then by all means, find a hole and drop him in. If his termination is allowed to stand (assuming that is all he was terminated for) then what is to stop a community from terminating a gay teacher, or a teacher who practices Wica or any number of other groups who do ‘not fit in with society norms’?

I guess it all boils down to degrees. Persecution is fine as long as it is someone else. I try and error on the side of caution. I liked the line in Star Trek from Spock: "The needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few."

As I said earlier, freedom is not easy, and it is not cheap. The cost for freedom is that we must tolerate some of the things we hate most. Unfortunately, there will be innocent casualties along the way. That is also one of the costs of freedom.

Garfield,

I agree with you. I was not posting that example as something I necessarily agree with; I was just posting it as an example of what the gov't and courts have done to NAMBLA members. (I personally, however, would not allow my child to be educated by a member of NAMBLA).

Here is the citation if you would like to read the case: Melzer v. Board of Educ., 336 F.3d 185. Unfortunately, due to the length of the case, I was forced to generalize the case. But to give you an idea of how the court decided, I will give you the final quote of the case...

"In sum, appellant's freedom to associate with and advocate for NAMBLA is protected by the First Amendment. The Board nonetheless meets its burden under Pickering by demonstrating that plaintiff's association and his degree of active involvement in NAMBLA caused disruption to the school's mission and operations justifying the Board's action terminating him."

It appears as though the court allowed the termination because of the disruption, not because of NAMBLA. In other words (or maybe in the words of the court), the school would have been justified in firing the teacher if the disruption was due to anything. Even if the disruption was due to the teacher being an outspoken member of a Baptist Church, the termination would be due to the disruption, not the baptist church membership. Although I find that outcome doubtful, I assume that is the reason why the court has not been overturned. In fact, it has been followed seven times in the federal court, thus making it precedent.

Many organization's are catching on to what you call "tolerating some of the things we hate most". Do you remember about 3 years ago when one of those evangelical groups supported a Satanic Organization that wanted to use classrooms for their studies after school? The entire Evangelical community was in an outrage; but what they did not understand was that this group was trying to preserve the Evangelical's right to use the classrooms after school. If the satanic group cannot use it, then by Equal Protection, etc... the evangelicals wouldn't be able to use the classrooms.

 

[Garfield1966]

Thanks for the citation. I believe that is what so many people fail to see when they jump all over the ACLU. Yes they defend some unsavory groups and individuals, however it is my belief that they are doing it for the same reason as the church you cited. They are protecting the rights of those who we hate so that the rest of us will be able to enjoy the freedoms that we cherish so much.

BTW, I believe your sig line is a bold face lie OK, perhaps it is a oxymoron. I'm a bit tired and little slow right now.

 

[700IAM]

They are protecting the rights of those who we hate so that the rest of us will be able to enjoy the freedoms that we cherish so much.

This post shows exactly Who What and Where you are.

The Lost, Satan's Child, Heading to perdition

Anyone who really believes what you wrote is completely lost or part of the family of Satan, I think it's the latter.

Your writing style and fancy thought patterns might impress the lost who you seek to gain as followers on your destructive path, but people who can see are not fooled.


Someday you will either continue cursing me or thank me, if you’re lucky.

 

[Gilding the Lily]

This post shows exactly Who What and Where you are.

The Lost, Satan's Child, Heading to perdition

Anyone who really believes what you wrote is completely lost or part of the family of Satan, I think it's the latter.

Your writing style and fancy thought patterns might impress the lost who you seek to gain as followers on your destructive path, but people who can see are not fooled.
Someday you will either continue cursing me or thank me, if you’re lucky.

700 (club),

I agree with Garfield... and I have a great example:

"I consider myself a Christian; but I hate your method of 'spreading the great message'. However, I understand that you have the freedom (limited) to speak your mind any way you choose. Despite the fact that I hate your chosen style, I would still attempt to defend your freedom of speech if it ever came into question. I would do so because your freedom is closely tied to the freedoms I enjoy. If someone takes away your freedom (limited) of speech, then what will stop that society from taking away my freedom of speech? In sum, I defend your absurd speech to defend my own."

 

[Garfield1966]

My thought pattern and writing style is not fancy in the least. It is merely the result of a critical mind and the use of logic. Items that you are entirely unfamiliar with and incapable of emulating.

All you are capable is regurgitation along with cut and paste. You are incapable of supporting any of your theories and result to insults and bully tactics when all else fails. You have no comprehension of law or the US constitution. Your ignorance in thee areas is only exceeded by your blind hatred for things you are incapable of understanding. If there was anyone who is in desperate need of a cranialrectalotomy you are a prime example.

 

[local 12 proud]

Hypocrits and vipers!... its 'freedom of speech' and 'protecting precious rights' as long as it fits your left wing liberal whack job agenda, if not then its racist, bigoted, prejudiced, hate filled, homophobic, sexist, and on, and on it goes flowing from you're mouths like vomit from a drunkard.

Here is your shining example to hold up, you should be so proud!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/uc/20061012/cm_uc_...ell_iii20061012

 

[Ch. 12]

Hypocrits and vipers!... its 'freedom of speech' and 'protecting precious rights' as long as it fits your left wing liberal whack job agenda, if not then its racist, bigoted, prejudiced, hate filled, homophobic, sexist, and on, and on it goes flowing from you're mouths like vomit from a drunkard.

Here is your shining example to hold up, you should be so proud!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/uc/20061012/cm_uc_...ell_iii20061012

Thanks Mr. Democrat. You were right and I apologize...every one of your posts is totally from your stated Democratic viewpoint.

 

[Garfield1966]

Hypocrits and vipers!... its 'freedom of speech' and 'protecting precious rights' as long as it fits your left wing liberal whack job agenda, if not then its racist, bigoted, prejudiced, hate filled, homophobic, sexist, and on, and on it goes flowing from you're mouths like vomit from a drunkard.

Here is your shining example to hold up, you should be so proud!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/uc/20061012/cm_uc_...ell_iii20061012

I will try and write slowly so that you can keep up.

If NAMBLA or any of their members commit a felony, put them in jail. I have yet to see anyone rep, dem or anyone in between disagree with that sentiment.

The ACLU is an independent organization that fights for rights that no one else will so that all of the rest of us may also enjoy those rights. Freedom of speech applies to all of us. It applies to the KKK, Neo Nazi’s, separatists, and yes even republicans. I realize you may not like the idea of laws being applied equally to all but that is what "freedom and justice for ALLâ€￾ stands for.

So, instead of posting some hit and run diatribe with a cut and past to a op-ed piece, why not try and present an argument as to why NAMBLA should not be afforded the rights that the rest of us are. Keep in mind, any argument you make against NAMBLA must be applied equally to all of the conservative groups you so revere.

 

[local 12 proud]

Thanks Mr. Democrat. You were right and I apologize...every one of your posts is totally from your stated Democratic viewpoint.

I think your confusing your limp wristed liberal party to that of a true conservative Democrat at heart.

The two are as different as day and night, Nonetheless I accept your apology.

 

[local 12 proud]

I will try and write slowly so that you can keep up.

If NAMBLA or any of their members commit a felony, put them in jail. I have yet to see anyone rep, dem or anyone in between disagree with that sentiment.

The ACLU is an independent organization that fights for rights that no one else will so that all of the rest of us may also enjoy those rights. Freedom of speech applies to all of us. It applies to the KKK, Neo Nazi’s, separatists, and yes even republicans. I realize you may not like the idea of laws being applied equally to all but that is what "freedom and justice for ALLâ€￾ stands for.

So, instead of posting some hit and run diatribe with a cut and past to a op-ed piece, why not try and present an argument as to why NAMBLA should not be afforded the rights that the rest of us are. Keep in mind, any argument you make against NAMBLA must be applied equally to all of the conservative groups you so revere.

Lay off the katnip puss-n-boots, as usual you try and twist what I was saying. You liberals cried to high heaven when foley exercised his freedom of speech on the internet sending love notes back and forth with a 17 year old boy, and how disgusting that was and calling for his head,(which BTW I agree) but when the shoe is on the other foot with a liberal supporting your agenda you come out in defense and try to misconstrue the facts.

Fact is, You can't handle the Truth

 

[Garfield1966]

Lay off the katnip puss-n-boots, as usual you try and twist what I was saying. You liberals cried to high heaven when foley exercised his freedom of speech on the internet sending love notes back and forth with a 17 year old boy, and how disgusting that was and calling for his head,(which BTW I agree) but when the shoe is on the other foot with a liberal supporting your agenda you come out in defense and try to misconstrue the facts.

Fact is, You can't handle the Truth

When exactly did the attempted seduction of a minor become legal? Then there is the ethical question of a superior making requests of a subordinate. If Foley did not violate the law (I am pretty sure he did) then he will not be prosecuted. Both sides of the aisle denounced him because what he did was at the very least reprehensible. Political posturing aside, if there was no violation of the law, then he has nothing to worry about.

You would not know what the truth was if it came up and bit you on your arse. If NAMBLA was violating the law, they would be in jail, if Foley violated the law, he will be in jail. This is about the rule of law. Not what you personally like or don’t like.

How the hell could anyone attack what you say? All you do is post some diatribe with a cut and paste. You have yet to present a coherent argument about anything. You should talk to Leto, perhaps he could give you some pointers.

Edit:

Aside from any legal violations. My guess is there is a code of ethics (hence the existence of the ethics committee) that governs what members of congress may or may not due. I am also guessing that sending sexual messages to pages is probably not permitted.

 

[Garfield1966]

Lets try this a different way.

The issue is the ACLU defending NAMBLA. NAMBLA is an organization. According to their stated purpose, they want laws changed so that adults can have sexual relations with people under the age of 18. Since we are addressing the actions of an organization, the alleged actions of individuals is not at issue. I see this as a freedom of speech issue. Can an organization advocate something that we as a society do not agree with?

I am assuming that at the very least, NAMBLA has not committed any obvious violations of the law since if they had, the organization would have been dismantled and its organizers would have been put on trial.

From what I have read, the suite against NABBLA is based on the premise that NAMBLA caused a man to meet some young boy and I believe the boy ended up dead. As reprehensible as that is, I fail to see how an organization can be held liable for the actions of it’s members. I have seen shows on how to manufacture various weapons on TV. I have seen shows where I have learned how to set up intricate traps for individuals. If NAMBLA is held responsible then these programs would have to be held to the same standard (law has to apply to everyone, not just the ones we don’t like). It would seem to me that personal responsibility needs to come into play as well. I do not care what NAMBLA advocates, I as an adult must make the final determination as to the legality and ‘rightness’ of my actions and I alone am responsible for any action I take.

The only thing the law can look at is if something is in violation of a certain code or law. It is not permitted to look at who is saying what. Whether it is NAMBLA or the girl scouts. The only question is "is the speech protected under the law".

That is my argument. What is yours?

 

[local 12 proud]

That is my argument. What is yours?

In typical puss-n-boots form you have once again deflected from my statement concerning your bias arguement, not suprising though thats the liberal way twist and spin the facts. You are defending the ACLU no matter the cost of personal loss to someone else just as long as it does'nt step on your liberal agenda.

Were becoming a growing nation of concealed carry permit holders, of which I am a member.

Why do you suppose that is?

Lets say just for sh!ts & Grins, your son was Internet surfing (assuming a traditional family) and he was chatting with a NAMBLA member about such innocent things as going on a fishing/camping trip would you still support this persons rights to innocent chit chat with your child. Keep in mind no line has been crossed (YET!) so no law has been broken, You still defend the right of this person to express his fondness and interest for your little one?

Lets look at your twisted logic another way, the (terrorist) who have made no bones about what they plan to do if they ever get the chance to remove your infidel head surf the net daily, have their own chat rooms, laying plans and schemes yet their freedom of speech is'nt protected as you suggest it should be. No crime has been committed yet, so they should be alowed to voice their intentions just like NAMBLA Huh? Is that your Frikin Nonsense arguement, or should they be held to a different standard. Remember you said all 'rights' should be protected for 'ALL' no matter how vile and sickening we think they are.

Spin away spinmeister!

 

[Garfield1966]

Fondness and interest are a bit different than camping and fishing. As far as I am concerned, personally no, I would not let my son speak to anyone they do not know. That is my responsibility as a parent. Legally, he has the right to talk to anyone on line about camping and fishing. If he is aware that the person s a minor and is looking for sexual contact, then that is against the law.


Plotting murder, or other such destruction is also against the law as far as I am aware. I believe it is called Conspiracy. I’ll have to check with a law professor to verify.

 

[Gilding the Lily]

In typical puss-n-boots form you have once again deflected from my statement concerning your bias arguement, not suprising though thats the liberal way twist and spin the facts. You are defending the ACLU no matter the cost of personal loss to someone else just as long as it does'nt step on your liberal agenda.

Were becoming a growing nation of concealed carry permit holders, of which I am a member.

Why do you suppose that is?

Lets say just for sh!ts & Grins, your son was Internet surfing (assuming a traditional family) and he was chatting with a NAMBLA member about such innocent things as going on a fishing/camping trip would you still support this persons rights to innocent chit chat with your child. Keep in mind no line has been crossed (YET!) so no law has been broken, You still defend the right of this person to express his fondness and interest for your little one?

Lets look at your twisted logic another way, the (terrorist) who have made no bones about what they plan to do if they ever get the chance to remove your infidel head surf the net daily, have their own chat rooms, laying plans and schemes yet their freedom of speech is'nt protected as you suggest it should be. No crime has been committed yet, so they should be alowed to voice their intentions just like NAMBLA Huh? Is that your Frikin Nonsense arguement, or should they be held to a different standard. Remember you said all 'rights' should be protected for 'ALL' no matter how vile and sickening we think they are.

Spin away spinmeister!

Just so we are all on the same pages concerning legal standards. The right to free speech is limited. You cannot, with your speech, incite others to commit a crime; nor can you use certain fighting words or hate speech. And to be perfectly honest, there are also restrictions on obscene speech.

Thus, the terrorist, who is using the internet in order to incite others to "remove your infidel head," is not acting within the limits of free speech because he/she is not acting within the confines of our law (law that although hotly contested, is set in precedent).

Under the current status of our law, there is nothing wrong with an individual of Arab ancestry speaking his mind and attempting to spread the message of Mohammad to Americans. If that individual begins to include speech that is considered hateful, obscene, or incites violence, then that individual is abusing their freedom and should be shut up as soon as possible.

Likewise, if the 700 Club, attempts to spread the gospel to all America, they have every right to do so. However, once Pat Robertson suggests to others that they should kill a Supreme Court Justice so that a conservative can be placed on the bench, he has gone too far and is abusing his freedom of speech and should be shut up as soon as possible.

Ok, I just want everyone to be on the same page regarding the current legal standards.